what a great picture! the queen and king of the event of the last decade! 12 titles combined! the last time Wimby had two over 30 y.o. champions was in 1975! with Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King. the stat is just an example of how great are Serena and Roger in tennis history.

Logged

Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble.

if at all this wimbledon proved anything, it's simply these two things:

1. to all those excuse makers bulls**tting the prime, non prime garbage, this win is like a backfire at their absolutely pathetic excuse making and discrediting nadal and djokovic pointing at federer's age everytime he crapped his pants and lost to nadal and djokovic in the recent times.......

we have heard enough of that 30 years song for so long now........30 means jacks**t when you train yourself like a teen and still move like a 25 year old........so you guys stop blowing that trumpet.......

2. federer's career has been a perfect reflection of his latest slam win.........he never had a rival until 5 years ago and when he had one finally, he started losing and winning whatever that rival has allowed him to take.........

i will still give a big credit to him for manning up and beating djokovic, murray because he took what was there to be taken, but it's ridiculous to blow this GOAT nonsense based on a bunch of weak era slams and nadal-leftover-slams........

Sorry, you may be a little tired and emotional, but i need to correct you about a few things. Age IS an issue for tennis players just like it is for any other sportsman, to suggest it isnít is simple ignorantIt isnít merely that movement suddenly becomes sluggish or that mobility is compromised to the point of making playing at a high level unsustainable. Rather that some small injuries tend to endure or that large new ones can emerge impinge or end an athletes career. There is some slowing down, though this is negligable-at least until a player reaches his 30's.But even more significantly psychology plays a huge part in the later careers of players-especially those sports where nerve is involved-like tennis. Every retired tennis player iíve ever heard who commented on the subject reports that nerves increase with age, not the converse. Even Nadal recently commented on how nervous he was going into the French open final. Most grandslame winners win their first slam before the age of 25, those who donít are in a minority, and the optimum age for winning slams in men is between 20-26.Of course players win slams older than this, but if you check out the stats over the last 20 years, once you hit 30 that likelihood diminishes drastically in statistical terms.

The concept of the GOAT will inexorably be determined by simply counting up the number of slams a player has won. There are no other satisfactory criteria which could possibly establish such an idea, which is why Federer is considered the greatest. Some may doubt this, but overwhelmingly amongst players, commentators, and fans of the game his is the best and for one good reason-heís won more slams than any other guy.The logical upshot of not using a slam count as decisive is that i can put forward any player i think of regardless of the number of slams heís won and claim heís the GOAT by virtue of any criteria i care to think of-weeks at no1, head to heads, overall ATP titles, the era he played in, the surfaces he won on ect.History almost unanimously judges slams as the criteria by which we judge the greatest, and all your post Wimbledon sobbing and angst will not change that one jot.

things which he din't have in 2004,

1. experience of being in all kinds of situations 2. strong backhand3. strong serve4. experience of fighting someone like nadal 5. confidence and freedom of nothing else to prove

all those things he has today.......look it's absolute bulls**t to say that he is 30 and that's why he is supposed to be weak........it doesn't work like that........a player transforms over a period of time, he loses some and gains some over a period of time........he never has everything at one point and nothing at a later point.......

you are just being utterly biased and selective when you just focus on that slight drop in movement leaving aside all those things mentioned above........

nadal started winning slams at 19 and no nadal fan ever fixed a time frame till 2008 and called post 2008 his non-prime period.......it's a business of cowards who can't deal with real rivals........

nadal played invincible tennis in 2008, a level which could not be touched on any surface and he rolled over federer, djokovic, murray on all kinds of surfaces like a bulldozer and finally stopped himself in us open 2008 having won 3 hardcourt titles in 3 straight weeks before the slam........

no nadal fan framed that little 2008 period as his peak and called other years as prime or non prime garbage even thought it is quite clear that he never touched that level before or after that year........

Nobody has said he is supposed to be weak, try reading the post you are responding to and engage with it rather than confining yourself to rather embarrassing and neurotic rants about the abilities of Nadal. Given what you've written on this thread you're clearly approaching a stage where reasoned argument is futile and some sort of sedation and professional psychological help is the only option. The argument that i made is that there is a diminishing of a players ability, this is common sense, but this is born out statistically too. Male tennis players typically do better in their mid twenties and citing Agassi as a player who won slams in his thirties doesn't negate the plausibility of the statistical fact. So it's perfectly reasonalbe to assume Federer's abilities are not quite what they were dispite him just having won a slam-he is less of a player than he was, but not so much less of a player that he poses no threat to the top players. The exact trajectory of a players ability isn't measured by a line on a graph, but incrementally-a longterm downward trend can include upward and downward spikes which do not negate the long-term situation and are statistically less permanent.

heavy bulls**t yet again and you are the one to speak about mental help........you conveniently ignored all the points i made and peddled the same "diminishing abilities based on statistical trends" bull........no wonder i regularly skipped your posts until you quoted me and asked me to teach you........

it's hard to argue with stats obsessed ones like you because they think 92-6 in 2006 over davydenko, ljuboho, blake, agassi etc. reflects the so called prime of a player while he did not lose a single grandslam match to anyone other than nadal and djokovic since us open 2010 but lost in lesser tournaments and that should account for non-prime........if that is your understanding of the sport, you are beyond help........

you seem to be focusing your entire argument over a single element called "diminishing physical abilities" (which is not even as big as you are blowing it up and nadal's movement sometimes these days looks that of a 36 years old's in comparison to your hero's) while i taught you what all a player can have at different stages in career........

30 means nothing today........did it ever occur to you why there are hardly any teenagers in the top 50 anymore or why there are so many 30+ in the top 100 these days? training methods have taken over and teenagers are getting their arse kicked by fully grown men........the sport is moving more towards mid and late 20s in general........

look at david ferrer........he moves as good as ever........

and don't teach me about statistical trends........it's not even funny that you seem to be putting slams and non-slams in the same unit on the horizontal and indicate his performance over the years on the vertical........let me tell you, it doesn't work like that........

Logged

Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

djokovic is easily the favourite to win the semifinal........he has all the answers for federer's tennis........federer can come up with blinding tennis and still that won't be enough because djokovic is now a grown up man on grass, not a baby of 2007 anymore........

yeah i assumed they would play outdoors like men and not indoors like girls........

Logged

Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

I'm sure missing a hell of a lot more lame excuses from everybody, please enlighten me about other lame excuses from these guys.. which am I missing?... But just to read this list makes me just LAUGH and feel sorry for these posters.......

And it just seems hilarious to talk about this stuff when Nadal hasn't won a SINGLE TITLE OUTSIDE OF CLAY since 2010... Wasn't Nadal supposed to be a major strength in this era? How come he hasn't won a SINGLE TITLE outside of clay since 2010???

Yeah, I already know all the answers I am going to get from Shank, but they will be as lame as their previous ones... Anyway, you have 2 problems now: Getting the fact that Fed at his 30 is back to No. 1 (with Djokovic and Nadal in his competition) winning his 17th. GS and the other, just having to deal with it, cause all your excuses and lame arguments will not change the fact that Federer is back at the top and it will certainly will not take his title away.. so, if you want to continue being the sore loser you have always been when it comes to Federer, then by all means continue with your race in diminishing Fed's achievements, after all, you won't be able to take any of his records and titles away from him.

Anyway, you keep believing you are going to change something with your rants and personal hatred towards Fed.. You are in for a big disappointment and Fed will be regarded as one of the best players to ever played the game, whether you like it or not..

But hey, in history, there is known to be some tards like these posters and having fanatics trying to diminish someone else is just part of the sports... McEnroe's and even Connor's fans were trying to diminish Sampras in the beginning, and how about Borg's and even Laver's fans... same ol' same ol'... At the end, history will prevail and no matter whatever YOU think and how many people you TRY to convince otherwise, Fed will be regarded as one of the best players to have played the game... You don't want to deal with it? Tough luck... LOL

Belief in luck is for losers who choose not to properly prepare and prefer to place the blame elsewhere when they fail.

MT

thank god, you didn't elaborate the other part, belief in luck for the winners. so easy to try to sell the "lucky" factor. had never buy it.

to bring luck in to sports is just to try to downgrade achievements without considering talent and hard work. full stop.

Agreed.

Before watching the final, I'd be interested to hear from folks who they thought served better in the final?

I've always been of the opinion that the best server (1st & 2nd delivery) usually has the upper hand, even on today's grass.

I'm going to play the "luck" game for a bit, actually. It should be great fun & it's raining outside so I've got 10 minutes to spare! I lead a really exciting life!

I think, for example, that NADAL got very lucky. Noone has had the balls to call him on his purportedly cheating ways. The time wasting, the strategic medical time outs, the coaching from his coach during a match. Apparently he is a dab hand at such dubious tactics. There are even those who also ask what "medication" he takes to enhance his performance. Most intriguing. Apparently, the ATP are fed up with his griping & whingeing. And Tiriac's views about him are most interesting! As for his behaviour to Rosol during the Wimbledon match - what a low rent attitude. All in all, NADAL is really lucky to have got this far. Had he been forced to forego the "help" he gets during matches, I wonder if he would have achieved what he has achieved? I also of course think he is a formiddable player & could easily beat anyone without these cheap tactics. But I still wonder what would have happened .........................

Next, DJOKOVIC. I think Djokovic got really lucky to find his inspiration in a breathtaking and compelling manner. It was really lucky of him to also find an egg to sleep in. This is a rare privilege. Who knows what might have happened if the egg were taken out of the equation. Also, it was so lucky that Nadal gave away free gifts to him & let him win in all those matches. Apparently, Nadal's level dipped because his parents split up? Djokovic was really unlucky to have been outplayed by Federer in the FO 2011 & in Wimbledon 2012. I am sure though, that his luck will change & after spending a bit of time sleeping in the egg & chest thumping ( alternatively from one to the other) he'll be back to winning again.

Next MURRAY. Murray didn't get lucky or unlucky. Apparently he is in a state of limbo, deciding whether to keep a GS win for himself or whether to give it away. It seems his mission in life is to give free gifts to Federer by letting him win GS's against him. This is the opinion of at least one of his fans. Obviously, Murray is attempting to be either Father Christmas or Mother Theresa. At this stage, I'm not sure which.

Next FEDERER. There really is no luckier player in the game. Honestly. All that talent & flair. Genius, really. He is a lucky basta*d for sure! And the other basta*ds have to play real opponents in real circumstances, not cardboard cutouts in indoor conditions. And he just gets away with it again & again. In fact, 17 times. Now that's what I call lucky!!!

Before watching the final, I'd be interested to hear from folks who they thought served better in the final?

I've always been of the opinion that the best server (1st & 2nd delivery) usually has the upper hand, even on today's grass.

Murray served very well, especially in the first set & the bulk of the second set. You'll obviously find the stats on the Wimbledon / ATP site. More crucially, he consolidated his excellent serve by making few UE's, and played with an aggressive, positive attitude. He was clearly on a game plan to move Federer around & give him no rythmm / momentum & he succeeded. He had Federer where he wanted him & took his BP chances better. I thought he played excellent, intelligent tennis.

Federer found his inspiration in the last couple of points in the12th game of the second set. With some sublime shots ( have a look at how he broke Murray at 6-5 ) he broke Murray to clinch the set. This was the turning point in my mind - Federer had settled down. His serve improved thereafter - including the second serve. Murray, despite his superb return skills couldn't dent Federer's serve & in the 4th set in particular, Federer was simply too good. Murray was outplayed & outclassed by Federer at his near best. I agree with the commentators - there was nothing Murray could have done with Federer playing like this & he would have beaten anyone.

I think Fed will lose the loose grip he has on #1 pretty quickly. But more importantly he will never lose the grip on #17.

All he cares about is records

Logged

"Sometimes it feels like you're not on a tennis court, the amount of noise you guys produce and for us it's a great feeling. It's a pleasure playing in front of you. It's my great privilege to be standing here in front of one of the greatest players ever, Rod Laver. "

feel bad for Kohly but I really want Tommy to go deep at W. On the other hand, I really hope we can see Djokovic vs. Federer in semis . it would be so cool.

djoko and fed both look very beatable, alex.......grass is not djokovic's favourite surface and he will be challenged by a lot of players........last year he was untouchable and just carried that early season momentum into wimbledon.......

i think this tournament is going to be a show of three men - nadal, del potro and berdych.......

..Dallas : you do know how to make a point !! incidentally/ironically, Berdych : out in R1Nadal : out in R2Delpotro : out in R4.

Logged

You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

for those who're saying nadal not focused enough or distracted by euro cup .........how about fed having 2 twin girls travelling with him. all i am trying to say is stop making excuses and be gracious in accepting losses.

what a great picture! the queen and king of the event of the last decade! 12 titles combined! the last time Wimby had two over 30 y.o. champions was in 1975! with Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King. the stat is just an example of how great are Serena and Roger in tennis history.

heavy bulls**t yet again and you are the one to speak about mental help........you conveniently ignored all the points i made and peddled the same "diminishing abilities based on statistical trends" bull........no wonder i regularly skipped your posts until you quoted me and asked me to teach you........

it's hard to argue with stats obsessed ones like you because they think 92-6 in 2006 over davydenko, ljuboho, blake, agassi etc. reflects the so called prime of a player while he did not lose a single grandslam match to anyone other than nadal and djokovic since us open 2010 but lost in lesser tournaments and that should account for non-prime........if that is your understanding of the sport, you are beyond help........

you seem to be focusing your entire argument over a single element called "diminishing physical abilities" (which is not even as big as you are blowing it up and nadal's movement sometimes these days looks that of a 36 years old's in comparison to your hero's) while i taught you what all a player can have at different stages in career........

30 means nothing today........did it ever occur to you why there are hardly any teenagers in the top 50 anymore or why there are so many 30+ in the top 100 these days? training methods have taken over and teenagers are getting their arse kicked by fully grown men........the sport is moving more towards mid and late 20s in general........

look at david ferrer........he moves as good as ever........

and don't teach me about statistical trends........it's not even funny that you seem to be putting slams and non-slams in the same unit on the horizontal and indicate his performance over the years on the vertical........let me tell you, it doesn't work like that........

Has Federer had any dips in form? Or has he played at his highest possible level for the last 9 years?